The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

That reproducer looks like a Columbia #5, with a transitional mount: there is an outer metal part that connects to the arm, then an intermediate thick rubber isolator that attaches to the outer piece via three screws, and the there are three more screws going the opposite direct into the back of the reproducer head.

In Columbia / client world, this allowed Columbia to mount an earlier-style three-screw reproducer (such as an "Analyzing"), onto a mounting hub that would fit their new (first-generation) bayonet mount tone arm.

Or, a later #5, Grand, or Concert Grand onto an earlier arm with the three-screw mounting.

It was a convenient way to use-up older parts by mix & match.

It is a valuable piece of early Disc Graphophone / Grafonola stuff, circa 1910-1912-ish.

Not sure if anyone made an adapter flange to fit Victor goosenecks... Columbia used reproducer mounts with male bayonet hubs, while Victor used reproducers with female bayonet mounts...

The first generation Columbia bayonet-mounts are slightly smaller than the ones found on 1913 - later Columbia machines. Earlier bayonets will fit later arms, but might be a bit loose.

Later Columbia reproducers should NOT be forced onto early bayonet arms, as the arms are made of thin brass sheet and are easily damaged.


Good luck with the project, Clay !



I have a couple of these Columbia reproducers, and am looking for a source for replacement isolator discs...

Okay, I see how they did it...

Previous owner took Columbia # 5 reproducer, as well as the bayonet socket from the Columbia arm, and then klodged that onto the Victor gooseneck.

In the backside photo, you can see the Columbia release button for the bayonet mount.

Presumably, the Columbia parts wee not harmed, and hopefully neither was the Victor.

( Is that a Victor "fat arm" ? )

Thanks Frank. Let me know if you find a source for the isolators.

The setup to get it on the Victor crook is a bit odd. There is a metal ring spacer that goes on first, then the reproducer with that metal cap on the back.

Clay

Step 2, and probably the last for tonight. Cleaned up the data plate and you can now read the serial number, which is 52826 and should put it in the second half of 1908.

Clay

Ah, makes sense with the later lid lock then. Mine is S/N 24850 from mid 1906. Cleaned up nicely.

Andreas

mcgravy wrote:Clay, Nice machine. I believe the reproducer is a Columbia.

Correct: it's identical to the reproducer on my BZH.

Bill

Here is the motor. Even though it is a good strong runner, I think I may send it off to George V. for a good cleaning and lubrication. After 100+ years those springs have just got to be gunky and a little more than I want to take on in my condo's kitchen.

Clay

The cabinet is done and I am pretty pleased with how it turned out. An overnight soak in Evapo-Rust brought the hardware up to snuff. I cleaned the data plate with some 0000 steel wool and a bit of car polish. The wood did not need anything other than a rub with Kotton Klenser Lemon Oil and beeswax. (The flash makes it look a bit shinier than it really is.)

Things will go on the back burner now for awhile pending servicing the motor and getting the correct back bracket and tone arm assembly in time.

Clay

Work was not always as carefully done at the Victor factory as I might have expected. I noticed a couple of little things when cleaning up the case; minor, but sort of interesting to me.

One of the motor board hinges was not installed so that its edge was parallel with the edge of the motor board. Their solution? Bend the other leaf of the spring in the middle so as to create a sort of flat surface on that leaf to mount it to the case.

The crank opening was not drilled quite in the location it should have been to line up with the motor shaft. Their solution? Move the crank escutcheon a bit to the right. But this meant that the left escutcheon screw was too close to the edge of the hole to get a good bite into the wood. Solution for that, use a nut and bolt instead of a wood screw on that side.

Both these things have obviously been that way since day one as there are no extra screw holes, or anything else, to show that something was changed later.

Clay

FloridaClay wrote: The crank opening was not drilled quite in the location it should have been to line up with the motor shaft. Their solution? Move the crank escutcheon a bit to the right. But this meant that the left escutcheon screw was too close to the edge of the hole to get a good bite into the wood. Solution for that, use a nut and bolt instead of a wood screw on that side.

Both these things have obviously been that way since day one as there are no extra screw holes, or anything else, to show that something was changed later.
Clay

Everyone is free to do with their machine has they see fit. However, unless I'm reading this wrong...you are doing more harm than good. In my opinion, it is always better to leave a machine as it left the factory whenever possible. This is not a modern mass produced "perfect" item. These were still put together by hands and will have unique issues and imperfections. In my opinion, that is part of the charm and character of a machine.

I noticed in an earlier post you showed the data plate retaining it's wonderful (rarely found nice) silver wash.
In my opinion, that data plate looked great. However, in your more recent pics, the data plate now seems to have lost most of that silver wash. Nipper now looks brass in color. If that is the case and not just the pic....that's too bad.. .
One can be a bit over zealous when cleaning a new toy. Sometimes it's better to clean less...IMHO...